Go to page

Registered

What if you were traveling, wanted to stop to use the bathroom, grab a snack, get a drink, etc., but you were at 50% to 60% battery? In the e-Tron's configuration, your vehicle would add just as much energy as it would if you purposefully postponed your stop for another hour or two just to get down to 10% battery.

In other words, if your 500-mile trip required 30 minutes of charging to complete, you are much more limited with the Model 3's charging curve. With the Model 3's charging curve, you need to plan your charging stops around arriving at a 10% to 20% battery in order to achieve that 30 minutes of total charging time. With the e-Tron's charging curve, you can chose to stop for 30 minutes at almost any point along that trip that makes sense to you without any sort of penalty.

Make two 15-minute stops or three 10-minute stops? Sure, pretty much at any point you want to.

Drive down to 5% and make a single 30-minute stop? That works.

Stop just an hour into the trip for a quick bathroom/coffee stop? That works too.

So right now, we are still in the innovator stage for EVs as far as the Diffusion of Innovation curve is concerned. In order to push into Early Adopter phase, we really need to stop requiring people to make concessions on behalf of the vehicle or technology. While it's okay for EVs to have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we need to get to a point where consumers do not need to significantly adjust their behaviors or preferences just to suit the requirements of the vehicles. Right now, most of the Tesla owners I know who take long trips fall into one of two groups: They either already liked to travel by making numerous short stops at specific predetermined intervals, or they adjusted their behavior and now find it an acceptable way to travel. Many customers won't be as tolerant as the latter group.

Let's start with your first scenario. If the model 3 will average 200kW for the first 50% and average 155kW for the first 80% or the Audi averages 155kW for the first 50% and 150kW for the first 80%, I would definitely skip the charging stop at 50% and move on to the next one at 10% in my model 3 and I would arrive before the Audi. Is that agreed?
My entire position is that with a charging rate curve that has a sweet spot, wherever it lies in the % of battery range vs. a straight line rate curve that never wavers more than 3% from the peak generally will be superior to efficiency with the following caveat.
Level 4 charging stations are spaced around 75-100 miles apart.

The comparison between the model 3 and the Audi is a bit unfair to the Audi as it's peak and average at ~150kW is woefully short of what the Model 3 is capable of to the point that the Model 3 doesn't get below 150kW until around 45% which is about 15 minutes in. So a 15 minute charge in the Audi at 60% battery will get me 50 miles and the Audi at 50% remaining has only gone 110 miles so let's bump it to 30 minutes since there's no real taper penalty. I've now added 100 miles to the 110 I've driven. Let's run the Audi down to 10% which I've now covered 310 of the 500 miles and pray that there's a working 175kW charger available when I get there and we do it again. This time you might as well charge all the way to 100% again, since there's to taper penalty and I need the full 220 mile of a full battery to get to my destination. This adds another 45 minutes of charging. I've now charged for 75 minutes in the Audi to go 500 miles.
The model 3 drives to 10% with a pee break for 10 minutes somewhere along that journey with no added miles. That puts me at 290 miles covered. Charge for 15 minutes adding 180 miles but I really need 230 miles to be safe so rather than stop again, I'll take a hit on taper and charge for an additional 10 minutes. Now I can cover the 500 miles and only stopped once required for 25 minutes and 10 minutes for comfort. 35 minutes vs 75 minutes.
This highlights my leaning towards using the charging curve to your advantage vs. your preference to not having to think about when is the best % of battery to charge as we all currently do. Bolt owners and Tesla's. We already do this. But you are correct that if the charge rate is a flat line, charge whenever you have the opportunity makes sense.
One last note on the Tesla charging curve, my example above is assuming that the area under the curve is exactly the same for the two examples. Meaning that if it allows a peak of 250kW, then the taper will drop such that the average for example may be 175kW 0%-80%, the flat line rate would then be 175kW throughout the 0%-80% range. As I mentioned earlier, my choice of planning to take advantage of the peaks only really works if I have ubiquitous, reliable, optimally located level 4 chargers on route.
Now the Porsche, if it can charge at 350kW from 0% to 80%, no Tesla can touch that rate.

Registered

Let's start with your first scenario. If the model 3 will average 200kW for the first 50% and average 155kW for the first 80% or the Audi averages 155kW for the first 50% and 150kW for the first 80%...

Exactly, which is why you shouldn't conflate specific values with the overall principal. The Porsche Taycan will (reportedly) be released with an initial charging rate of ~200 kW, and if it charges with a similar pattern to the e-Tron, it will charge faster than the Model 3, even if the Taycan sees less overall efficiency. Ergo, using the e-Tron's charging profile in a vehicle that is as efficient as the Model 3 would result in better outcomes than using the Model 3's current charging profile. Ergo, the e-Tron's charging profile is superior to the Model 3's charging profile outside of a small 10% to 20% SOC window.

Registered

People don't care what SoC they're getting on a long trip. They care how many miles per minute of charging they are getting. If a car can charge quicker, but is not efficient and gets fewer miles per minute of charging, it's not as time efficient.

Registered

People don't care what SoC they're getting on a long trip. They care how many miles per minute of charging they are getting. If a car can charge quicker, but is not efficient and gets fewer miles per minute of charging, it's not as time efficient.

Registered

Yeah, people are really put off by that extra 1 minute of fueling. You're talking the difference between a 4 minute fuel stop and a 5 minute fuel stop that adds 400 miles of range.

With EVs, you're talking much larger differences in ability to add miles of range per given amount of time. My threshold for driving an EV long distance is probably somewhere around 15 minutes to add 200 miles of range. The SoC in so many minutes is irrelevant except tangentially in how it affects the miles per minute of charging.

Registered

IF. But apparently it doesn't, otherwise the Model 3 wouldn't be reaching 80% battery at the same time as the e-Tron, which has a 10 kWh larger battery.

Exactly, which is why you shouldn't conflate specific values with the overall principal. The Porsche Taycan will (reportedly) be released with an initial charging rate of ~200 kW, and if it charges with a similar pattern to the e-Tron, it will charge faster than the Model 3, even if the Taycan sees less overall efficiency. Ergo, using the e-Tron's charging profile in a vehicle that is as efficient as the Model 3 would result in better outcomes than using the Model 3's current charging profile. Ergo, the e-Tron's charging profile is superior to the Model 3's charging profile outside of a small 10% to 20% SOC window.

My hypothetical as to whether it averages 200kW or 190kW is irrelevant to the example. As I mentioned earlier, according to the graph of which if you disagree with it's accuracy, post one that trumps it, the Model 3 and the Audi reach 80% at 30 minutes. I don't really care what the average kW to 50% is and neither should you. The model 3 gains 270 miles and the Audi gains 175 miles. That they both get to 80% at the same time doesn't matter, what matters is that in that 15 minutes or 3 weeks, one of them can go 50% further while charging for the same length of time. You're shuffling of statements and correcting minor charge rate discrepancies are a lame attempt at begging the question to fit your narrative.

I'd also like to see your trip scenario where the Taycan, taking into account it's efficiency when traveling at 70mph, regardless of whether it's a flat line range curve or a sine wave, will be faster getting from point A to point B. Not saying it's not possible but I think you're going to have to come up with a unique set of circumstances for that to happen. And this is assuming the quantity, dependability, availability, and location of the 175kW chargers matches the Supercharger network.
As of about a month ago, there were about 100 EA locations in the entirety of the US. Of those, I can't tell how many are in excess of 150kW. I had heard that there were only 14 of the 350kW plugs but can't find a source so don't quote me. I also don't know how many other fast charging companies have 150+kW chargers so it could be more than 100. But we have over 600 Superchargers of which the V2's will be upgraded to 145kW in the next few months so even if the V3 stations are not on route, we should have plenty to choose from for the Model 3.

start at 15 minutes.
Also at 38 minutes in is a discussion of E-tron degradation potential due to current. I mention this as we don't really have any data concerning the degradation that may befall the Porsche and Audi as a result of an increased amperage per cell calculation. We know that Tesla's battery technology is the benchmark all others are based on inarguably.

And what if you travel in the winter, where it's cold, and your battery doesn't pre-heat in preparation for level 4 charging? And next we can talk about cost to charge if you want to open that can of worms.

Why are you comparing the model 3 using Audi's flat line charge rate of 150kW when the Audi actually charges at a flat line rate of 150kW? And based on that rate, it adds 175 miles in 30 minutes. If the Model 3 adds 260 miles in that same time, how can it have a comparable adjusted to flat line charge rate? It would be closer to the 200kW I used earlier but it's irrelevant anyway. Whether you change the software of the Model 3 to average out the area under the curve to a equal flat line charge rate of what it currently is, it comes back to charging method preferences of either not having to think about what's the optimum % of battery level that gets me the most efficient return of miles/minute(the one you prefer) or the S curve allows the ability to add more miles/minute assuming the area under the curve is the same (my preference). It's personal preference but no matter how you shuffle the statistics and come up with what if scenarios, the Audi you can buy today in no scenario I can imagine will get you from point A to point B faster than a model 3 you can buy today. Is that something we can agree on?

Registered

My hypothetical as to whether it averages 200kW or 190kW is irrelevant to the example. As I mentioned earlier, according to the graph of which if you disagree with it's accuracy, post one that trumps it, the Model 3 and the Audi reach 80% at 30 minutes.

Maybe you just didn't understand, or you are possibly blinded by your enthusiasm and loyalty to the Tesla brand.

I don't need to post a different graph because that one suffices. The Model 3 will add 60 kWh in 30 minutes. The e-Tron will add 68 kWh in the same amount of time despite having a lower peak charging rate. Clearly (based on that graph), the Audi's charging profile is superior overall, and the Model 3's profile is only superior within a narrow window of operation.

Sure, sure. The Model 3 is amazing in that it is a great fusion of both efficiency and overall charging rate. However, it feels a bit like it is succeeding despite some of its shortcomings. And the way to get better is acknowledging those shortcomings in an objective way.

So a couple of questions:

Why is it that anytime another automaker does something notable (or in particular, better than Tesla), that achievement is met with mockery and derision or is simply ignored or unacknowledged?

Registered

Sure, sure. The Model 3 is amazing in that it is a great fusion of both efficiency and overall charging rate. However, it feels a bit like it is succeeding despite some of its shortcomings. And the way to get better is acknowledging those shortcomings in an objective way.

That's highly unlikely. It's far more likely that requiring owners to run the battery down to 10% in order to get the best charge rates while pumping energy in at a 3.4 C rate for the first 5 minutes is more harmful. Charging at a constant (and relatively benign) 1.6 C rate from 0% to 80% is far less taxing on a battery.

Someone on my video channel did mention the one time where Tesla's model is objectively better: When you are trying to get people in and out of a your chargers as quickly as possible. It seems just as likely that Tesla's motivation for this has more to do with controlling traffic at their Superchargers than it does with what's best for the vehicle's battery.

It's also important to note that, while that can alleviate pressure and wait times at chargers, it doesn't necessarily improve trip speeds for the end user. Each additional stop will typically add at least 5 minutes of time to your trip that is not spent driving or charging, so it would be at least 10 minutes faster to make a single 30 minute stop than to make three 10 minute stops. That actually offsets all of the advantages seen by charging faster in the 10% to 40% window. Essentially, you're stressing your battery for no real-world benefit (though the charging network benefits through increased capacity).

Registered

So a couple of questions:
Why is it that anytime another automaker does something notable (or in particular, better than Tesla), that achievement is met with mockery and derision or is simply ignored or unacknowledged?
Why is it so hard to acknowledge when someone does something better?

There is a lot of irony in what you say. Many of your post across several different threads that I've read are incredibly insulting to numerous members directly and indirectly. You only backhand (-ish terms) compliment anything or anyone but yourself. Often try to put other peoples ideas and material off as your own. When people bring up your false remarks you just say oh I thought you understood the history or nuances of all past things discussed. It really is stunning that you fault others so much but don't see your obvious faults. You come off as incorrigible to many people that I've observed. I've seen you use the term pathetic for everything except for the Bolt limitations in charging speed (55 and stepped at low SOC) compared to virtually all other DCFC capable cars. You reason the Bolt is so cheap that it is OK to 'nerf' it (your word). I've read people wanting to hack the Bolt charging for faster charging so they could save 5-10 minutes on trips.

You rarely show your own proof or empirical data or graphs and just makeup scenarios to fit your story. It is a regular pattern.

Registered

There is a lot of irony in what you say. Many of your post across several different threads that I've read are incredibly insulting to numerous members directly and indirectly. You only backhand (-ish terms) compliment anything or anyone but yourself. Often try to put other peoples ideas and material off as your own. When people bring up your false remarks you just say oh I thought you understood the history or nuances of all past things discussed. It really is stunning that you fault others so much but don't see your obvious faults. You come off as incorrigible to many people that I've observed. I've seen you use the term pathetic for everything except for the Bolt limitations in charging speed (55 and stepped at low SOC) compared to virtually all other DCFC capable cars. You reason the Bolt is so cheap that it is OK to 'nerf' it (your word). I've read people wanting to hack the Bolt charging for faster charging so they could save 5-10 minutes on trips.

You rarely show your own proof or empirical data or graphs and just makeup scenarios to fit your story. It is a regular pattern.

Registered

Maybe you just didn't understand, or you are possibly blinded by your enthusiasm and loyalty to the Tesla brand.

I don't need to post a different graph because that one suffices. The Model 3 will add 60 kWh in 30 minutes. The e-Tron will add 68 kWh in the same amount of time despite having a lower peak charging rate. Clearly (based on that graph), the Audi's charging profile is superior overall, and the Model 3's profile is only superior within a narrow window of operation.

Sure, sure. The Model 3 is amazing in that it is a great fusion of both efficiency and overall charging rate. However, it feels a bit like it is succeeding despite some of its shortcomings. And the way to get better is acknowledging those shortcomings in an objective way.

So a couple of questions:

Why is it that anytime another automaker does something notable (or in particular, better than Tesla), that achievement is met with mockery and derision or is simply ignored or unacknowledged?

This is rich. The pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe if you'd stop making up your own facts, I wouldn't have to spend so much time correcting them. Where do you want to start?
Just in recent memory we have;
The supercharger V3 will never exist
The bolts sales will explode once the FedCred countdown starts
The bolt is supply constrained
Tesla is behind a smear campaign to destroy the Bolt
The bolt charges almost as quickly as the Model 3
The Model Y has met it's match when it goes head to head with the bolt. This remains unproven for now.
The bolt's battery tech is superior to Tesla's
There's a conspiracy within the European Model 3 to intentionally gimp the charge rate to avoid upsetting the spoiled Americans.
Shall I continue?

Registered

news is just desperately against Tesla at all cost - anti-Tesla troll - reminds me of another anti-Tesla troll on the porsche forums that posts cherry picked and confusing “facts” but always with an agenda...

i’ve given up considering News an actual source of information - which is ironic given his forum handle - I enjoy most everyone else’s contributions and still love this forum!

Registered

Are you now claiming you never wrote those things on this forum?
You've made that accusation before about bias and I can't help but draw a comparison to the televangelists Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggert. They also used the tactic of "Accuse first lest thyself be accused". They became quite wealthy casting their minions to the gates of **** for gay behavior and fornication when they were participating in those same activities. The parallels are uncanny for they too got caught.
Let's make a deal. If I can post your quotes that back up those alternative facts of yours, will you stop posting your garbage for 6 months? And if I can't, I will stop correcting your misinformation campaign.
I normally would file your posts along with flat earthers, anti-vax, and alien abductions but there are new members here that just want the facts. No spin, no agenda, no made up data and that's why I just can't let it go.
Other members here have also called you out for your distortions too so it's not just me. When you tried to claim the bolt has similar charging speed as the model 3 but failed to mention that you were comparing two different sized vessels so the data was bogus and misleading, other Bolt owners weren't fooled either.
I don't think your audience here is as clueless as you think we are.

Super Moderator

This is a friendly neighborhood reminder that it's probably a good idea to get back to the topic at hand, Tesla V3.0 Supercharging, and not other superfluous items. If we can't do that, this thread will be locked. Thank you.

Go to page

Just a plug to search for an event in your area and register to attend, Drive Electric week is only one week away
https://driveelectricweek.org/index.php
https://driveelectricweek.org/events.php#search-event
"National Drive Electric Week, September 14-22, 2019, is a nationwide celebration to...

I guess 20k points equal to a $100 gift certificate for buying accessories at the dealer... the only things that looks even slightly interesting is the $140 All Weather Floor Mat set and the $174 installed trailer hitch. What do you think?
From what I am reading, if I get the credit card, I...

GM's all electric pickup will reportedly debut in 2022, around the same time Ford will unveil its e-pickup.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-pickups-focus/ford-gm-rev-up-electric-pickup-trucks-to-head-off-tesla-idUSKCN1VY0YE

Once VW ushers the ID 3 1st Edition into the world, the regular production model will offer a 45-kWh battery that provides an estimated 205 miles of range and an even larger 77-kWh battery with an estimated 342 miles of range on tap...